1. Technical Field
This invention relates to distributed computer services, particularly computer services having online forums.
2. Background Information
An online forum is a communications interchange in which people may communicate with others through successive electronic transmissions between respective computer systems. An online forum, or any other type of distributed computer services, may be implemented on a distributed computer system such as that shown in FIG. 1. Forum participants (equivalently, users of the computer services) typically are scattered across a large geographical area and communicate with one or more central server systems 100 through respective client systems 102 (e.g., a personal or laptop computer). In practice, the server system 100 typically will not be a single monolithic entity but rather will be a network of interconnected server computers, possibly physically dispersed from each other, each dedicated to its own set of duties and/or to a particular geographical region. In such a case, the individual servers are interconnected by a network of communication links, in known fashion. One such server system is xe2x80x9cAmerica Onlinexe2x80x9d from America Online Incorporated of Virginia.
Each client system 102 runs client software that allows it to communicate in a meaningful manner with corresponding software running on the server system 100. The client systems 102 communicate with the server system 100 through various channels, such as a modem 104 connected to a telephone line 106 or a direct Internet connection using a transfer protocol such as TCP/IP (Transfer Control Protocol/Internet Protocol). The server system 100 is responsible for receiving input from the client systems 102, manipulating the collective body of input information (and possibly information from other sources) into a useful format, and retransmitting the formatted information back to one or more clients 102 for output on an output device, such as a display screen.
Referring to FIG. 2, one type of forum is a xe2x80x9cchat roomxe2x80x9d 200, in which the various participants 204 (e.g., xe2x80x9cAllens9,xe2x80x9d xe2x80x9cJOSHUAALEX,xe2x80x9d etc.) may enter text which appears in a scrolling text window 202 on each participant""s computer display screen. In the example in FIG. 2, the chat room 200 has 22 participants whose identities (or xe2x80x9cscreen namesxe2x80x9d) are listed in a scrolling window 210. A participant 204 may respond to the comment of another participant 204 by entering a line of text in an edit box 206 and activating (e.g., by clicking with a pointer device, such as a mouse) a SEND button 208. In response, the text in the scrolling text window 202 scrolls upwards and the newly entered line of text is displayed at the bottom of the scrolling text window 202. In the illustrated example, the last participant to enter a comment was JOSHUAALEX, who typed xe2x80x9cTEXAS.xe2x80x9d
The chat room 200 shown in FIG. 2 is xe2x80x9cpublicxe2x80x9d, meaning that it has multiple participants who were placed in the chat room by the computer-service provider and who most likely never have met or conversed with one another before. A comment by a participant in a public forum may be seen by all of the participants of the chat room. If a participant desires some privacy, that participant may xe2x80x9copenxe2x80x9d and enter a xe2x80x9cprivatexe2x80x9d chat room (for example, by clicking on a SETUP button 212), and thereafter invite one or more other participants to enter the private chat room. Once in a private forum, participants may communicate with one another without fear that uninvited participants will be able to see their comments.
When a participant in a forum, whether public or private, makes a comment that others in the forum regard as offensive, in poor taste, wildly incorrect, or otherwise objectionable, the offending participant most likely will be xe2x80x9cflamedxe2x80x9d by one or more of the other participants. A xe2x80x9cflamexe2x80x9d is a reprimand or other stringent response directed at the offending party. One purpose behind flaming another participant is to dissuade the offender, through embarrassment or intimidation, from making further objectionable comments. In this manner, if the offending user chooses to curb his or her behavior in response to the flaming, a forum may be crudely regulated or xe2x80x9cpolicedxe2x80x9d by the forum""s participants. However, the offending participant may continue to behave in an objectionable manner. Further, a participant who overly xe2x80x9cflamesxe2x80x9d other participants may also be objectionable. Accordingly, participant policing of forums does not always work well. In such cases, offended participants may drop out of xe2x80x9cflame-filledxe2x80x9d forums, and/or the online service must devote resources to actively police problematic participants.
Other objectionable behavior includes sending one or more messages to xe2x80x9cspoofxe2x80x9d other users as to the sender""s identity in order to try to get confidential information (e.g., credit card numbers or passwords) sent in response (sometimes called xe2x80x9cpassword fishingxe2x80x9d).
Another problem that can arise in online systems is xe2x80x9cresource hoggingxe2x80x9d, where a participant uses features such as broadcast or multi-cast messaging to send a large number of messages to other users in a short period of time (sometimes called xe2x80x9cspammingxe2x80x9d). Such resource hogging deprives other users of server resources, and can slow an online system response time to undesirable levels.
Accordingly, the inventor has determined that there is a need for a better way to police recalcitrant participants in online forums and to reduce spamming. The present invention provides a method and means for accomplishing this goal.
Various embodiments of the invention can include one or more of the following features.
Regulating a user of a computer-based service may include receiving input about a first user from at least one other user of the computer-based service, determining a degree to which the other user can influence a parameter associated with the first user, and modifying the first user""s parameter based on the received input and the determined degree of influence. The first user""s parameter, for example, can relate to the first user""s ability to use the computer-based service. The first user""s parameter may remain unaffected when the degree of influence is determined to be zero.
The determination of the degree of influence may include considering a type of action engaged in by the first user that caused the other user to provide input. The other user can have a high degree of influence on the first user""s parameter when the type of action engaged in by the first user that caused the other user to provide input was personally directed at the other user. For example, the other user may have a high degree of influence on the first user""s parameter when the type of action engaged in by the first user was sending an Instant Message.
The determination of the degree of influence may include considering one or more factors relating to the first user or the other user or both. These factors can include a user""s behavioral index, rate limiting state, resource (e.g., memory, number of forums occupied) usage, past complaints, illegal (e.g., hacker) activity, amount of revenue (e.g., subscription, advertising, e-commerce) generated, and messaging patterns. The basis of comparison can be to a predetermined threshold, a dynamically shifting threshold, the other user""s corresponding level, or any combination thereof.
The determination of the degree of influence may include capping the degree of influence to a maximum amount, for example, either quantitatively (e.g., by applying a ceiling function) or temporally (e.g., by applying a time-out function). If a time-out function is applied, capping of the degree of influence may include applying a function based on an elapsed time since an occurrence of an action engaged in by the first user that caused the other user to provide input.
The determination of the degree of influence can include considering an interpersonal context between the first user and the other user, for example, by applying a function based on an ordering of events during an interaction of the first user and the other user.
Modification of the parameter associated with the first user may include limiting the first user""s permissible messaging rates, limiting the first user""s access to one or more forums, modifying the first user""s cost of using the computer-based service, and varying a degree of influence (e.g., xe2x80x9cevilabilityxe2x80x9d) that the first user has over another user of the computer-based service.
Modification of the parameter associated with the first user may include temporarily limiting the first user""s ability to use the computer-based service if the input received from the other user constitutes a first occurrence of input about the first user. The temporary limitation on the first user""s ability to use the computer-based service can constitute a short-term limitation.
Regulating a user of a computer-based service also may include displaying information related to a current state of the first user""s modified parameter, for example, by updating a state of a graphical abstraction such as a power bar.
Advantages of this invention may include one or more of the following. The techniques described here enable a multiple-user online service (e.g., a chat room or other forum) to be self-policing. Users of a computer-based system have the ability to sanction a misbehaving user and thereby have the offending user sanctioned as appropriate, for example, by having the user""s access to the system denied or curtailed. Unlike the conventional xe2x80x9cflamingxe2x80x9d approach to policing, which typically fails because it relies on the misbehaving user curbing his or her own behavior or results in retaliatory xe2x80x9cflaming,xe2x80x9d the regulating techniques described here are based on predetermined rules and operate automatically in response to votes cast by other users of the computer system. The offending user has no choice in the matter once he or she chooses to misbehave. Because the operation of these regulating techniques is automatic, the computer-based service provider need not expend personnel time and resources to police public forums, direct user communications, and the like.
The privileges accorded to a misbehaving user can be regulated based on a modifiable set of rules in response to input about that user received from other users. The particular set of rules applied can be modified as appropriate according to the preferences of the system administrator. For example, user parameters relating to access to online forums, the cost of using the computer-based service, permissible messaging rates, the degree of influence that the user can exert over other users, and the like all can be adjusted based on other users"" feedback to implement the desired system usage policies. The sanctions applied to a misbehaving user can be finely tuned to take into account the nature and timing of the objectionable conduct and the context under which it occurred, thereby giving system administrators a powerful and sophisticated tool for regulating user behavior. Despite the sophistication of these regulating techniques, users can be educated as to their operation through the display of graphic instrumentation. This instrumentation gives a user an intuitive indication of how his or her behavior, as well as the behavior of others, affects, and is affected by, application of the rules.
The details of one or more embodiments of the invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.